1068
Comments (158)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
3
ZoominLikeToobin 3 points ago +3 / -0

Her husband is chairman of the New York Stock Exchange. So if he's managing it then its the same.

5
dukeness 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don’t think he was managing them either. Also, it’s common for fiduciary managers to make moves or trades, even go all cash, without investor consent on each move. I worked for a firm that did just that, for far lesser clients than Senators.

4
TrumpVictorious 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is my understanding. The client gives a general idea of what they want like about 60/40 stocks and bonds but the portfolio of fully run by the manager.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
ZoominLikeToobin 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wouod find it hard to believe that with the size of her portfolio there wouldnt be significant dialogue. That type of business relationship also creates plausible deniability for the client that has inside knowledge. Meet over lunch give the info then both parties get the financial benefit with no provable trail.

2
dukeness 2 points ago +2 / -0

Significant accountability, yes. Routine dialog might include trade notifications (which can be easily ignored), detailed monthly statements, meetings maybe 1-2 times a year. Give accountability and results, and the conversations can be minimal.

1
ZoominLikeToobin 1 point ago +1 / -0

I get that a legitimate operation would do that. But what I'm saying is it creates the environment to enable the fraud if one were wanting to engage in it.

2
iamherefortheluls 2 points ago +2 / -0

touche